What would happen if we could control the time? And understand it. With forumulas like we callculate pi? Would it be goof? Will we do the right? What did you think? ;-)
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-01 14:48
It would be ''goof''.
No we would not do it right, and no we cannot do it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 2:38
some physicist recently came up with an idea for two-dimensional time, like we have 3-dimensional space. Sovling time in two dimensions simplifies a few things, and could provide the gap between relativity and quantum physics.
I think he's an idiot for throwing away his career on the idea, but it's still a cool idea for internet discussion.
>>6
This statement is completely meaningless but may sound profound to credulous dipshits. Consider writing a book. You may become the next Deepak Chopra.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 17:26
He means that if we disapear we wouldn't have perception of time and it wouldn't be like we see it as in our normal life.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 23:34
I would put it into a bottle
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 23:37
It doesn't matter if we disappear or have not concept of time.
Things still age.
If this is a big if, but if time has a end and it hits it and begins to bounce back. Then if people could jump to the future then in essence they could jump to the past by jumping in the future and have a continuous cycle of time repeating its self, because it would hit the beginning and bounce back.
I think I just proved some ones theory wrong but whatever.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-06 0:27
What would happen if we could control the time? And understand it. With forumulas like we callculate pi? Would it be goof? Will we do the right? What did you think? ;-)
If we could control time I could go back to when my wife and I were younger and have moar hot sex.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 0:01
DON'T FUCK WITH TIME.
Name:
McPP2007-11-07 0:07
TIme cannot be stopped, paused or rewinded. This is impossible since it lies in another dimension and is the most powerful force. Traveling backwards in time is theoretically possible by utilizing a worm hole but the amount of energy to stabilize and enlarge one is ridiculous. Going forward in time is impossible since the future has not happened yet. Stopping time, that sir is stupid. Time is not like a DVD or a cassette it doesn't work that way. Read up on how the Universe works before you spew garbage from your unlearned mouth.
Time slows down as you near the speed of light, and would effectively allow you to be near the same age and return to a far distant future on Earth/another planet.
Of course, you'd have to be traveling at the speed of light, turn around, and do it all over again from a fuel source within the vehicle.
However, if you wanted to just travel at the speed of light and time pass the same speed as it would on Earth, a "hyper drive" would be needed to contract the space in front of you, and expand it behind you, creating a sort of time pocket.
Who needs to shut their mouth, eh?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 1:22
>>17
Disregard this post as every statement was wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 1:42
>>18
You were going so well, and then you mentioned hyperdrives.
Protip: science fiction is not a reliable source of information on spacetime.
>>19
Actually, he was kind of right about wormholes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 2:18
>>20
The wormhole bit isn't well accepted, what with the whole traveling faster than light impossibility bit, or the simple fact that connecting two areas of space will result in the same 'time zone' in essence.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 2:34
I think it would be a bad idea, even if possible. Just think back to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-07 4:22
>>21
Connecting two areas and allowing instantaneous (or any essentially faster-than-light) movement from one to the other violates causality, and counts as time travel, even if you don't do the bit where you take one of the wormhole openings and accelerate it to create a time shift.
Name:
McPP2007-11-07 19:20
Alright, the problem with traveling at the speed of light is, you are traveling at the speed of light. It's implausible.
>>27
And your length becomes zero. Contraction along the direction of motion, and all.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 19:04
ehm ... motion is relative, is you travel at the speed of light away from me then i ll be traveling the speed of light away from you.
so enough with the time slowing at speed of light bullshit
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 0:01
Travelling backward in time is perfectly possible. It's just entirely improbable for macroscopic systems, because soooo many things have to go backward in time. For smaller system, such as electrons or neutrinos it is sufficiently more probable.
Gotta love entropy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 1:38
>>29
lolololol try learning a LITTLE bit before speaking, at least.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 2:16
>>31
Bold words from someone who begins a sentence with "lolololol"...
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 10:15
>>32
Hence the irony. Also note that the criticism still stands.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 12:58
>>30
It's entirely impossible for something larger than Planck length. So while it's possible for photons and electrons, it's not for, say, protons and neutrons.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-15 19:51
>>34
WOAH WOAH WOAH... Electrons and photons exist at planck scale now!? Shit! When did this happen!?
can someone please explain, why this fails?
I understand, that besides motion (which is relative) actual velocity requires energy ...
And that there are quite different physical laws for speeds close to the speed of light (the latter Newtons rules).
But i still dont really get, why should one age slower while traveling faster :-)
Not quite. While the probability approaches 0%, it never quite reaches there. It becomes asymptotic.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-16 0:45
>>29
so lemme see if i can understand what you're saying. since motion is relative, it's completely possible we're all going at the speed of light already, but because we've nothing to compare it to we don't notice it that way? makes sense to me. if everything is relative, then yes, we could be going 1000x the speed of light, but since everything in our known universe is along for the ride with us we treat everything like a sealed off time bubble. but then i guess you'd have to tell me what set us in motion at such a speed (or what set the other object in motion, relatively). but that only works if we have something to be relative TO. meaning if we don't find something passing us at 1000x the speed of light then we have no idea that we are even going anywhere.
>>38
If everything is relevant, it doesn't make sense to say we're going 1000x the speed of light. This is the easiest part of relativity, and still people trip over this.
>>39
just leave these retards alone
they're not going to do anything useful with this knowledge
just go back to downloading family guys episodes and the like